This 'anti-intellectual' posturing has long been a central attribute of Fascists. 'I think with blood and earth!' 'When I hear the word culture I reach for my gun' and so forth. They always seem to imply that 'analysts' who approach problem solving by decomposing the problem through a process of divergence, are ineffectual and misguided, and that only 'men of action', bullfighters, gladiators, warriors, can lead. But where would we be without the microscope, the electric light, penicillin, integrated circuits? Were the intellectuals who developed these ideas not also men and women of action? The knee jerk reactionary contempt for 'intellectuals' is another example of their inability to think things through, to substitute 'staw men' for reality, simplistic views of complex situations, and to be too stupid to ever permit self doubt or self reflection.

Charlie Gibson is an intellectual?

As for the "Still" spot, I think you're right -- the real focus should be that after 8 years McCain still wants us to follow George Bush's lead and that he'll lie to us in order to make it happen.

With all the ammunition available to use against Republicans and McCain, this new ad called "Still" is a frikkin joke. If the Obama camp can't hit back harder than that, if their attacks are going to be this weak they're in serious trouble.

McCain and Palin have been incessantly lying, dissembling and exaggerating and this is what we get, "Still"?

McCain is going to end the tax deduction for Employer provided health care and give people an insufficient tax credit to buy their own. Does Obama know this?

Obama's opposition research team sucks.

But Obama is running on the platform of "no personal destruction" politics.

Saying he is out of touch is easy to prove, we have him on video for godsake saying that his wife does everything on the computer for him.

Even though we know he is unstable and potentially mentally challenged - Obama cannot say that or prove it. That is personal destruction politics.

Will all the bullshit they are giving him over the Palin crap - like it is some sort of witchhunt - he cannot go there with McCain.

Better he stay above the fray. There are many, many more things to hit him on.

Obama is caught in the McCain-Feingold ("I'm ____ and I approve this ad") Catch-22.

On the one hand he must appear to be serious, judicious, and mollifyingly above-it-all and on the other hand a knife fighter or worse ("I'll bring a gun"). But you can't go fully negative (the only ads that work with the apathetic independent voter) when you have to vouch for your ads, personally -- and in your own voice.

What's a fella to do?

OBAMA/BIDEN = STEADY CHANGE

McCain is "mercurial, unsteady, unreliable" and.......

--Erratic
--Risky
--Dangerous
--Inconsistent
--Uncertain
--Unpredictable
--Unstable
--Volatile
--Angry
--Wild-eyed (Yes, I know Saracudda has a lazy eye. I don't care if it's mean. We're playing for keeps, remember?)
--Annoyed
--Enraged
--Exasperated
--Furious
--Grim
--Heated
--Huffy
--Incensed
--Inflamed
--Infuriated
--Not rational
--In high dudgeon
--Irate
--Ireful
--Livid
--Mad
--Outraged
--Provoked (i.e. - McCain exploded disproportionately when provoked today...)
--Wrathful
--Vindictive (Sarahcudda vs. Librarians, Troopers, Reality, etc...)

If Obama wants to pursue this concept, I think he should make something that might go viral online (e.g., a parody of the Mac/PC ads, but without growing stubble).

It's fair and even helpful to attack John McCain on his voting record in the U.S. Senate. That he has "no ballast" as you say is indeed extraordinarily important when measuring a man's ability to lead the nation.

But if the history of presidential elections has taught us anything it is that a party's nominee will undoubtedly move their rhetoric closer to the base during campaign season. It's a matter of necessity; call it Beltway Darwinism if you will. Wagering criticisms at John McCain for this apparent shift to the right could just as easily be thrown back at Candidate Obama (just look at his tax proposals...).

Point is, which of these candidates, if elected, would have the moxie to defy their party stalwarts and shift back to the center once comfortably seated in the Oval Office? Bill Clinton, for one, did this to an appreciable extent. Throughout his two presidential elections he shifted noticeably to the left in terms of rhetoric and promises. But once elected, he went back to being a successful and progressive moderate.

With that being said, I think there are certain key issues like immigration, social security, and the outsourcing of American jobs that no first term president will touch. The reason being that whichever side they come down on, there will be a sizable opposition. Therefore, these three issues (and more) would practically require a second term president with "nothing left to lose."

But let's not attack either candidate for pandering to their respective bases. Every presidential nominee in the history of the United States is guilty of that crime.

I'll take a pass on the degree to which Obama should attack McCain/Palin. But on the question of how Obama should present himself I was certainly convinced by the following

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/dont-think-of-a-maverick_b_125850.html?view=screen

One other point: any good pool player knows that you've always got to be working to set up your next shot. This ad follows McCain's statement at the service forum at Columbia University, where he admitted to being "somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have". It's only part of the setup. The Democrats are building a frame. Rahm Emmanuel hinted at the rest of it the other day when he said, "[John McCain] has admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer or the Internet. There's a whole economic revolution going on, and it has fundamentally changed the economy and people's lives and he is removed from it."

This ad will make more sense in context. And the context, I believe is forthcoming.